2012 Rand McNally

[FLRoads]

The 2012 Rand McNally is now out and after a somewhat indepth comparison with the 2011 version I found the following modifications:

• Mississippi - MS 67 on the main state page is now shown as four-lane for its entire length (was a grey line in the 2011 edition)
• Missouri - I-64 is now shown as a freeway all the way to I-70
• Missouri - US 36 around the town of Chillicothe is shown in its proper alignment (the 2011 edition showed the alignment further south and as a freeway)

I'm sure there are a few more miniscule changes here and there, but that is all I could find after going page by page. And on the main U.S. map page, they did recolor the topology and reduce the size of the shields. Other than that, that's it.

And for the big kicker with the 2012 edition, none of the errors discussed in the 2011 thread were corrected!! So according to the 2012 Rand, I-520 still does not connect with I-20 on the South Carolina side, I-376 is not fully shown along PA 60 (and I-279 still exists from downtown to I-79), I-170 still exists in the Baltimore inset, the ICC is still shown as under construction, etc., etc...

Now I know that some projects, like the ICC, just recently opened within the past few months, but this is suppose to be a 2012 atlas, it should be shown as complete on this edition, not still under construction. Someone in their research department (if one still exists) should have done their homework on projects like that and made sure that if it was fully known as to the approximate date of the road opening that it would be shown as complete on their newer edition. I used to do this as a living so I know what it takes to get the research done on things like this. And even though they probably have no road enthusiasts like us working for them, one would think that there would be a little common sense involved when comparing items under construction in last years edition versus the edition you are working on the get out and seeing what has changed.

It seems to me that the items they did fix are only cosmetic. And as far as each of the state's population information, the only population they updated was for the state-wide population. Um, Rand McNally, wouldn't you think that if the entire state had a population change that the largest city in that state would also have a population change??? Really...

And now they have QR codes on every page so you can scan with your iPhone (or whatever) for free travel information, videos and more. I'm sure that the powers-that-be put forth more effort into this aspect of the map than they did for the actual update of the contents within the pages. They made sure that is on each page but they couldn't do something like update the little pictures they have inserted on each state as well? Come on now. Really??

In short, I am not pleased with this year's atlas at all. It's basically a carbon-copy of the 2011 edition with a few cosmetic changes, that's all. In fact, I plan on doing something I've never done with a road atlas until now; I am going to be returning it to Wal-Mart for a refund on Monday. With so few updates and still the same errors as last year, it's pointless to even make the purchase, unless of course you want to use the QR code functionality.

Since it seems that they have given up in producing a well rounded, up-to-date road atlas, perhaps it's time for Rand McNally to go way of many states in only producing a new road atlas every two years. Or perhaps it's time for them to give up all together and sell the company to its competitor (who seem to be gobbling up the rest of the mapping companies anyway).

You know, I use to enjoy the anticipation of buying a new Rand McNally (in late September/early October) and seeing all the changes and updates. Those days are forever gone. Now it comes out way too early (early April) and there are really no changes or updates to discover. Nope, only error after error after error. It's a real shame. Thanks a lot, Rand, thanks a lot...

If you do happen to get a 2012 Rand and see anything of interest (or something I probably missed in seeing), post it here.

[Quillz]

I only buy road atlases about every 5 years or so, when actual changes are likely to be reflected.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

And for the big kicker with the 2012 edition, none of the errors discussed in the 2011 thread were corrected!! So according to the 2012 Rand, I-520 still does not connect with I-20 on the South Carolina side, I-376 is not fully shown along PA 60 (and I-279 still exists from downtown to I-79), I-170 still exists in the Baltimore inset, the ICC is still shown as under construction, etc., etc...

Now I know that some projects, like the ICC, just recently opened within the past few months, but this is suppose to be a 2012 atlas, it should be shown as complete on this edition, not still under construction. Someone in their research department (if one still exists) should have done their homework on projects like that and made sure that if it was fully known as to the approximate date of the road opening that it would be shown as complete on their newer edition. I used to do this as a living so I know what it takes to get the research done on things like this. And even though they probably have no road enthusiasts like us working for them, one would think that there would be a little common sense involved when comparing items under construction in last years edition versus the edition you are working on the get out and seeing what has changed.

When I last attended a Roadmap Collectors Association meet, about ten years ago, there was a Rand McNally employee, showing upcoming RMC maps and getting feedback from the attendees and other sellers on the cartography and other issues.  This person also noted that RMC was aware of "us" on MTR (usenet/google groups) using their maps on our websites and discussing their product back at that time.

Since it seems that they have given up in producing a well rounded, up-to-date road atlas, perhaps it's time for Rand McNally to go way of many states in only producing a new road atlas every two years. Or perhaps it's time for them to give up all together and sell the company to its competitor (who seem to be gobbling up the rest of the mapping companies anyway).

You know, I use to enjoy the anticipation of buying a new Rand McNally (in late September/early October) and seeing all the changes and updates. Those days are forever gone. Now it comes out way too early (early April) and there are really no changes or updates to discover. Nope, only error after error after error. It's a real shame. Thanks a lot, Rand, thanks a lot...

With the changes at Rand McNally in the years since, I obviously can't speak to their staffing and work involved nowadays. As you say, the product speaks for itself, and handing out "garbage" won't help them now, or in the future.

[nexus73]

WalMart?  That's funny.  I went to WalMart in Coos Bay OR on Friday the 8th of April and not only were there no 2012 R-M atlases, there were none of any type to be had. 

However I did find Highway 61 Revisited...LOL!

Rick

[Scott5114]

Probably won't be buying this then.

They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?

[FLRoads]

Probably won't be buying this then.

They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?

Indeed. Hopefully I did not turn anyone off yesterday with my rant but when I saw that they had pretty much not done any updates, especially with certain road openings (I-520) and highway number changes (PA 60 and south portion of I-279 to I-376,), it absolutely floored me. I was expecting at least those two changes to have taken affect. And I am sure that Rand had some downsizing during the initial economic turmoil, but they should still have at least had a few people (at most) working in their research department! They could have at least gone to a 5 to 10 changes per page (and 5 to 10 changes per inset) format (thinking of another map company that currently does that). I don't know, I guess with more and more GPS's in vehicles and more and more people with intelligent phones that can access the internet that the need for the paper road atlas has drastically declined. I will not be surprised if Rand decides to sell the company to the highest bidder in the next few years to leave just one major mapping company on the market. Just a hunch.   

[vdeane]

I honestly never thought that an updated paper map could possibly be worse than Google, but now I know better! 

[kurumi]

There was a time (long ago) when the new RMcN atlas was the way you found out about new highways outside your state.

[Duke87]

I honestly never thought that an updated paper map could possibly be worse than Google, but now I know better!

This exemplifies a problem which has taken root in many things, not just cartography. Namely, that companies have realized that expending the effort to actually get it right isn't worth it - customers will tolerate a product not being perfect so long as it's "good enough". Therefore, top notch quality actually yields a lower profit than merely decent quality - the extra money spent achieving top notch will not be made back in extra sales. In our modern fast-paced society, people care more about getting things done quickly than about getting them done right.

Of course, it also doesn't help that technology is pushing your product into obsolescence. That really breeds an attitude of "just get it done and send it to the press, don't fuss over it too much". And yeah, I'll bet the people who were otherwise supposed to be spending time researching changes and updating the map were instructed to develop QR codes instead. Because after all, we live in a world of gimmicks.

[Jim]

I bought one every year from 1997 to 2010 and always looked forward to the new one.  Each year's travels are highlighted in the appropriate year's atlas.  But I skipped the 2011 after seeing it out so early and flipping through and noticing so many errors.  It looks like they won't be winning me back with the 2012.

I wonder if they've just thrown in the towel on trying to stay relevant in the era of online maps and GPS in so many cars.  Perhaps they feel the best business decision is to ride the brand recognition and put out a lousy product until enough people realize it's no longer what it once was.  I hope not, since I still really enjoy having an atlas to flip through while traveling or just sitting at home thinking about how I might make my next trip somewhere a little more interesting.

Maybe this is a topic for its own thread (and apologies if one already exists that I haven't seen), but...does anyone have suggestions on the best print atlas out there today?  I'm hoping to retire my 2010 RMcN before doing any summer travel.

[Alex]

Maybe this is a topic for its own thread (and apologies if one already exists that I haven't seen), but...does anyone have suggestions on the best print atlas out there today?  I'm hoping to retire my 2010 RMcN before doing any summer travel.

Geonova used to make a great atlas, but they were purchased and shut down a year or two ago. There is no suitable replacement for what they put out or what Rand used to be.

Probably the best atlas otherwise is the atlas published by Canadian MapArt. They have many new projects or proposed routes covered, and seem to actually care to update things, noting the projected opening dates on roads shown as under construction. The most recent shown on their web site is from 2009 however. The 2008 I've looked through was well done for what its worth.

[FLRoads]

I should have remembered about the MapArt atlas, but when it's out of sight, it's out of mind...may have to pull that atlas back out...

[Landshark]

Rand McNally needs to figure out that many of us use their atlases as geographical chronicles, and refer back to older versions regularly.  In this day and age of computers and the internet, it should be even easier for them to keep it up to date.  The more changes annually, the more likely I am to purchase it annually. 

[mightyace]

It's sad to the quality decline over time this.

They also have erred in the other direction.  I once blew an interview in NJ in the late 80s because Rand McNally had said I-78 on the southside of Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton was finished when it was far from it.

More recently, the 2011 atlas showed the 840 section between TN 100 and TN 46 being complete when it wasn't opened until October.

EDIT:
In the old Atlases (circa '60s, '70s, '80s), they would place as estimated time that the road would be open like Oct. 1966 or Fall 1971.

[Kacie Jane]

Probably won't be buying this then.

They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?

You know, I use to enjoy the anticipation of buying a new Rand McNally (in late September/early October) and seeing all the changes and updates. Those days are forever gone. Now it comes out way too early (early April) and there are really no changes or updates to discover. Nope, only error after error after error. It's a real shame. Thanks a lot, Rand, thanks a lot...

Two points... First, "post-dated releases" are not an uncommon phenomenon.  Cars, sports video games, magazines/comic books, etc. all typically come out the year (or in the case of magazines, a month or two) before the title/model year/etc says they will.

Secondly, provided that they still release the atlas every 12 months, the change in release date shouldn't have any effect on the map's accuracy.  Last year, you might expect some errors (although introducing new errors like the I-170 shield is inexcusable) since they rushed it out in about 7 months to switch to the April date, but this year that shouldn't be an issue.

This being said, I totally agree that RMcN seems to have gone downhill (haven't seen the 2012 version yet).  But releasing it in April isn't the reason for that.

[vdeane]

Of course, it also doesn't help that technology is pushing your product into obsolescence.

Too bad online maps aren't any better.

[Sykotyk]

I'm still two 2010 atlases and am still using a 2009 for county counting (it's a pain to update that). I updated from 2008 to 2010 for roads (I highlight them), but am not doing that for next year (takes too long, and if the map isn't seriously updated, what's the point?).

Plus, I am not a fan of how the new exit numbers are indicated, too bulky in my view. The small blank triangle/arrow with the number suffices for me.

I always liked RM, but they're not much better than the other brands now.

[6a]

This exemplifies a problem which has taken root in many things, not just cartography. Namely, that companies have realized that expending the effort to actually get it right isn't worth it - customers will tolerate a product not being perfect so long as it's "good enough".

Bingo.  Which, since I need a new one anyway, makes me think about rounding up a cut rate copy of the 2011.

In short, I am not pleased with this year's atlas at all. It's basically a carbon-copy of the 2011 edition with a few cosmetic changes, that's all. In fact, I plan on doing something I've never done with a road atlas until now; I am going to be returning it to Wal-Mart for a refund on Monday. With so few updates and still the same errors as last year, it's pointless to even make the purchase, unless of course you want to use the QR code functionality.

Yeah, but I bet you a dollar the list of Wal-Marts in there is up to date.

[Quillz]

I might stop by my local AAA and request some updated maps. I wonder if they do a decent job at getting new highways correct.

[Scott5114]

Probably won't be buying this then.

They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?

Two points... First, "post-dated releases" are not an uncommon phenomenon.  Cars, sports video games, magazines/comic books, etc. all typically come out the year (or in the case of magazines, a month or two) before the title/model year/etc says they will.

If everyone put broken glass in with their products, would that make it OK for Rand McNally to do so too? I'm not blaming that for the errors, I'm blaming them in taking part in the same idiocy that car makers have a fetish for.

[thenetwork]

I might stop by my local AAA and request some updated maps. I wonder if they do a decent job at getting new highways correct.

I had worked for AAA during my summer breaks from college 20-mumble years ago.  IIRC, it was the local AAA office's responsibility to regularly report to HQ about road changes & additions in their local areas so they may be changed in the next edition of the map.

As mentioned in other conversations, AAA makes their own National, Regional and State maps.  They also make maps for their larger, more popular cities in the U.S.  Smaller town maps may or may not be made by AAA.  As far as I remember, I had never seen AAA offer any RM-made maps with the AAA seal on them.

[triplemultiplex]

This exemplifies a problem which has taken root in many things, not just cartography. Namely, that companies have realized that expending the effort to actually get it right isn't worth it - customers will tolerate a product not being perfect so long as it's "good enough". Therefore, top notch quality actually yields a lower profit than merely decent quality - the extra money spent achieving top notch will not be made back in extra sales. In our modern fast-paced society, people care more about getting things done quickly than about getting them done right.

This.

By now I would expect that Rand Mac has outsourced most of it's operation to other countries.  The most current one in my possession says it was printed in Peru.  The cartography is probably done in an Indian sweat shop where they have no reason to care about the accuracy.  But more over, it's the same mentality of corner cutting to increase profit that pervades corporate America.  Build it cheap so it breaks and they have to buy another one.  Even if it's something like an atlas that has built-in obsolescence regardless of quality, just churn out the cheapest piece of shit you can so Wally World can retail it for 5 bucks.

[Quillz]

I've noticed the latest editions of the Thomas Guide now advertising having "streets that MapQuest/Google Maps don't have."

But I looked into it a bit deeper and found out that, in order to retain copyright, they actually are putting fake roads into their maps. This is most noticeable on maps that show the outskirts of the SF Valley, where I have noticed several "fire roads" or paths which indicate unpaved trails that don't actually exist.

The point is that I think paper maps are really hurting from digital maps and thus the only way to really fight back is to claim paper maps are more accurate.

[agentsteel53]

I've noticed the latest editions of the Thomas Guide now advertising having "streets that MapQuest/Google Maps don't have."

... they actually are putting fake roads into their maps.

wow.  their claim is technically true, but ... wow, what balls.

[NE2]

This sort of so-called "copyright trap" has been going on for a long time, and is often confused with bad data (I can't say which one this is). Have you checked that every real street they have is also on MapQuest/Google Maps, or are you making an assumption?